Residents of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa praise Pakistan Air Force strikes in Kabul and Nangarhar

Monitoring Desk: The US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has recommended targeted sanctions on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) for their responsibility and tolerance of severe violations of religious freedom.

The USCIRF’s report highlights the deteriorating conditions for religious freedom in India and the Indian government’s actions against religious minorities and houses of worship. The recommendations include freezing the organizations’ assets and barring their entry into the United States, linking future US security assistance and trade policies with India to improvements in religious freedom, and designating India as a “Country of Particular Concern” for engaging in systematic violations of religious freedom. The USCIRF’s recommendations are based on a series of incidents in India, including violence against religious minorities and the Indian government’s actions against them.

Designating India as a “country of particular concern” it has urged Washington to link arms sales and trade policies to religious freedom.

There has not been any response by the External Affairs Ministry (EAM) so far but last year the ministry had shunned USCIRF’s findings by calling them “biased” and “politically motivated”.

USCIRF was founded in 1998 by an act of Congress to “monitor the universal right to freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) abroad” and makes recommendations to the US President, Secretary of State, and Congress, reported Hindustan Times.

The USCIRF claims it works independently, however, all nine commissioners of the agency are appointed by the he US President and senior political leaders in the House of Representatives.

The agency in its report said, “Several states undertook efforts to introduce or strengthen anti-conversion laws to include harsher prison sentences. Indian authorities also facilitated widespread detention and illegal expulsion of citizens and religious refugees and tolerated vigilante attacks against religious minority communities.”

Islamabad Bureau adds

Concerns about religious freedom in India have increasingly drawn attention from international watchdogs, particularly the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). Over the past several years, the commission’s annual reports and special statements have highlighted what it views as a troubling trend of rising religious nationalism and discrimination against minority communities. While some interpretations of these reports have suggested calls for sweeping punitive measures, it is important to note that USCIRF has not formally recommended banning India’s external intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). Intelligence services are typically treated as state institutions rather than independent entities subject to “ban” recommendations. Instead, the commission’s concerns have largely centered on ideological networks, policy developments, and the broader environment affecting religious freedom in the country.

A central point of criticism relates to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a powerful socio-cultural organization that has long been associated with the ideology of Hindutva. Critics argue that Hindutva defines India primarily as a Hindu civilizational state and therefore risks marginalizing communities that fall outside this identity, particularly Muslims and Christians. According to several human rights organizations and USCIRF assessments, the influence of this ideology extends beyond cultural discourse into the political sphere, especially through its historical and organizational links with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Detractors contend that when such an ideological framework becomes embedded in political narratives and policy debates, it can create an environment in which religious discrimination appears normalized or tacitly justified. Supporters of the RSS, however, reject these accusations and maintain that the organization promotes cultural pride and national unity rather than exclusion.

Another recurring concern in international reports has been the pattern of violence and intimidation directed at religious minorities. USCIRF and other watchdog organizations have documented incidents such as mob lynchings of Muslims accused of cow slaughter, attacks on Christian churches and clergy, and episodes of communal unrest including the 2020 Delhi riots. These reports also refer to the activities of vigilante groups that allegedly target minority communities in the name of protecting religious or cultural traditions. Some analysts claim that individuals or groups inspired by Hindutva ideology have been involved in such actions, although organizations like the RSS consistently deny any direct role in violence and argue that these incidents are often misrepresented or politically motivated.

Legal developments within India have also drawn scrutiny. Several Indian states have introduced or strengthened anti-conversion laws that are officially framed as measures to prevent forced religious conversions. Critics, including USCIRF, argue that these laws are often applied in ways that restrict religious freedom and disproportionately affect Muslims and Christians. The legislation has also intersected with campaigns against so-called “love jihad,” a controversial term used by some groups to describe alleged efforts by Muslim men to convert Hindu women through marriage. Human rights advocates contend that the resulting legal and social pressures can lead to harassment, arrests, and vigilantism, particularly against interfaith couples.

Debate over India’s citizenship policies has further intensified international attention. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019 became a focal point of criticism because it creates a fast-track path to citizenship for non-Muslim migrants from neighboring countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. USCIRF and other observers argue that by excluding Muslims from this provision, the law introduces a religious criterion into citizenship policy. Concerns have been amplified by discussions about implementing a nationwide National Register of Citizens (NRC), which critics fear could place large numbers of people—particularly Muslims—at risk of losing citizenship if they fail to produce documentary proof of their status. In response to these developments, USCIRF has recommended targeted sanctions against certain Indian officials it believes are connected to policies undermining religious freedom.

Beyond domestic developments, some advocacy groups and diaspora organizations have also raised allegations about transnational intimidation. They claim that critics of the Indian government abroad—including activists, journalists, and members of diaspora communities—have faced surveillance, harassment, or pressure from networks linked to Indian nationalist groups. In some discussions these allegations have extended to suspicions about intelligence activity overseas.

Since 2020, USCIRF has repeatedly recommended that the United States designate India as a “Country of Particular Concern” under the International Religious Freedom Act, a status reserved for countries accused of engaging in or tolerating systematic violations of religious freedom. The commission cites what it views as increasing communal violence, legal restrictions affecting religious practice, and a broader climate of discrimination against minorities. Despite these recommendations, the U.S. State Department has not adopted the designation. Analysts widely attribute this restraint to the strategic and diplomatic importance of U.S.–India relations, particularly in areas such as regional security, trade, and the broader geopolitical balance in Asia.

Taken together, the criticisms voiced by USCIRF revolve primarily around concerns about the rise of Hindu nationalist ideology, reported violence and discrimination against minority communities, and legislative measures that critics say undermine religious freedom. Yet it remains equally important to distinguish between advocacy claims and formal policy recommendations. While the commission has called for greater scrutiny of organizations associated with religious nationalism and has urged sanctions against certain officials, it has not recommended banning India’s intelligence agency. The debate therefore reflects a broader and ongoing international discussion about the balance between national identity, democratic governance, and the protection of religious pluralism in the world’s largest democracy.